dzogchungpa wrote:OK, so the Dzogchen POV is that the Vajrasattva of Ngondro is a real Buddha, not just a method?

Whichever position you end up taking, please don't consider yidams to be "just" methods. They are methods. Existent or not, there is nothing meager or diminutive about the methods of the Vajrayana. To say something is provisional does not detract from its profundity. Confused beings must depend on provisional methods, they are what lead us to awakening.

Perhaps I should have been clearer about the fact that I have enormous respect for Vajrayana, and in particular, I think deity yoga is, potentially, an incredibly profound practice.

Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody. - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

dzogchungpa wrote:Perhaps I should have been clearer about the fact that I have enormous respect for Vajrayana, and in particular, I think deity yoga is, potentially, an incredibly profound practice.

I think, considering the context of the whole thread, that it came across that you have respect. As for the topic, for me it's as simple as acknowledging that just like you and I will one day attain buddhahood and will probably reveal tantras and sadhanas of our own to realized yogis/yoginis, in this same way past practitioners have attained buddhahood and performed these enlightened activities. This goes as much for Vajrasattva and Tara and Guru P and so on as it does for the Khyentses and Kongtruls and the many other great masters.

Malcolm wrote:As I said, archetypes as used by Dahl is a Jungian term, not really to be conflated with with Platonic usages of the term at all. Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and rejects all universals (samanya-artha) as being unreal abstractions.

Yidams are sambhogakāya emanations, not archetypes.

Fair enough. Leads me to ask the question as to what is better: to alow a practitioner to consider Yidams as archtypes and to practice according to that interpretation or is it better to remain locked into a formal (correct) interpretation which may cause the prctitioner (due to their karmic preponderances) to abandon practices and lose faith in the teachings?

Considering yidams as "archetypes" will not lead to a correct result. Why? At one level yidams are paths that represent the mandala of the basis, the mandala of the path, and the mandala of the result. At another level, yidams are sambhogakāya forms i.e. the form in which a sambhogakāya appeared in order to transmit the method of the path of transformation.

M

So if the Taliban community or the US military complex community(don't mean to single out the Taliban or the US) at this moment were to receive a transmission of Vajrasattva providing all the cognitions were correct. Why would the process of purification commence?

Why is so much co-emergence required from the other side considering the apparent attributes of Vajrasattva?

The "great vehicle" Buddhahood seems in complete.

Cessation of suffering from a "Great Vehicle" view has only occurred on paper.

So if the Taliban community or the US military complex community(don't mean to single out the Taliban or the US) at this moment were to receive a transmission of Vajrasattva providing all the cognitions were correct. Why would the process of purification commence?

Huh? What are you talking about? How do you suppose people that have no interest would "receive transmission" and have the "process of purification commence". It is not as if Vajrasattva unilaterally imposes Dharma on people.

Why is so much co-emergence required from the other side considering the apparent attributes of Vajrasattva?

The "great vehicle" Buddhahood seems in complete.

Cessation of suffering from a "Great Vehicle" view has only occurred on paper.

I think this entire line of thought can be traced back to how the word "for" is being used. A mother makes dinner "for" her family, so they don't have to do it themselves. It's not like that.

A man goes to medical school "for" others. He then can prescribe medicines. It is still up to the patient to properly follow his advice and take the pills. (The analogy of Buddha as doctor is a standard teaching, although I've adapted it a bit.) It's more like that, IMHO.

Last edited by smcj on Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN

brendan wrote:So if the Taliban community or the US military complex community(don't mean to single out the Taliban or the US) at this moment were to receive a transmission of Vajrasattva providing all the cognitions were correct. Why would the process of purification commence?

Because it is assumed that someone who receives transmission is interested in the path shown by Varjasattva, Vajradhara and so on.

Why is so much co-emergence required from the other side considering the apparent attributes of Vajrasattva?

The "great vehicle" Buddhahood seems in complete.

Cessation of suffering from a "Great Vehicle" view has only occurred on paper.

What does the Buddhahood of Mahāyāna lack? And why do you assert it has never been realized?

From what source do you derive your seemingly authoritative pronouncements?

brendan wrote:So if the Taliban community or the US military complex community(don't mean to single out the Taliban or the US) at this moment were to receive a transmission of Vajrasattva providing all the cognitions were correct. Why would the process of purification commence?

Because it is assumed that someone who receives transmission is interested in the path shown by Varjasattva, Vajradhara and so on.

Why is so much co-emergence required from the other side considering the apparent attributes of Vajrasattva?

The "great vehicle" Buddhahood seems in complete.

Cessation of suffering from a "Great Vehicle" view has only occurred on paper.

What does the Buddhahood of Mahāyāna lack? And why do you assert it has never been realized?

From what source do you derive your seemingly authoritative pronouncements?

M

Due to the claims and apparent attributes of Vajrasattva.

Due to there being suffering.

Last edited by brendan on Sun Aug 18, 2013 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

So if the Taliban community or the US military complex community(don't mean to single out the Taliban or the US) at this moment were to receive a transmission of Vajrasattva providing all the cognitions were correct. Why would the process of purification commence?

Huh? What are you talking about? How do you suppose people that have no interest would "receive transmission" and have the "process of purification commence". It is not as if Vajrasattva unilaterally imposes Dharma on people.

Why is so much co-emergence required from the other side considering the apparent attributes of Vajrasattva?

The "great vehicle" Buddhahood seems in complete.

Cessation of suffering from a "Great Vehicle" view has only occurred on paper.

I think this entire line of thought can be traced back to how the word "for" is being used. A mother makes dinner "for" her family, so they don't have to do it themselves. It's not like that.

A man goes to medical school "for" others. He then can prescribe medicines. It is still up to the patient to properly follow his advice and take the pills. (The analogy of Buddha as doctor is a standard teaching, although I've adapted it a bit.) It's more like that, IMHO.

If you take time to really dissect what it is that you mean by the word "exist",you will know the answer to this question....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

If you take time to really dissect what it is that you mean by the word "exist",you will know the answer to this question.if you don't do that,no answer will be satisfactory....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

I love this discussion line"does Vajra Sattva exist?"Well this blog doesn't exist so why post to it.Re:Trungpa it makes me think of the Zen objecting to ritual,when in Chan the practitioners know that two vehicles are needed for enlightenment.There's a falling into extremes.

Vajrasattva is no more real than the people who are imagining the existence of this thread....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

When queried about it, the previous Kalu R. replied to the person asking the question; "Well the deities are pure manifestations of the Dharmakaya. You, on the other hand, are an impure manifestation of the Dharmakaya."

That's not an exact quote, but close. I took away from it that he thought the deities were more real than we are.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN

smcj wrote:I took away from it that he thought the deities were more real than we are.

What does "more real" mean?

Ultimately real rather than merely relatively real.It means that when the confusion is gone confusion, what's left is pure dharmakaya....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Vajrasattva is no more real than the people who are imagining the existence of this thread.

You just blew my mind.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.